Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013--Motion to Proceed-- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today speaking in support of historic legislation that will move us one step closer to the day when who you love has absolutely nothing to do with the rights that you are afforded as a citizen of the greatest country in the world.

Frankly, the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is embarrassingly long overdue. In my State of Connecticut we have had antidiscrimination laws on the books for over 20 years. In 1991, Connecticut became the fourth State to formally protect LGBT workplace rights, and in 2011 we became the 15th State to offer similar protections to our transgender citizens.

So it is funny, because my constituents assume that all across this country it is already illegal to fire somebody for whom they love and for who they are. But, of course, as we know, that is just not the case across most of the country.

Right now, in some States, you can be fired from your job simply because of having a little photograph of your partner on your desk at work. While ENDA has been a commonly accepted civil rights protection in my State, you may hear some express opposition to this legislation on this floor by vaguely citing what are commonly referred to as the ``concerns of the business community.'' I am not sure what businesses they are referring to, because in my State we have some of the biggest and most successful multistate and multinational businesses in the world; and they know that nondiscrimination isn't just the right thing to do, it is also really good for business.

Companies such as United Technologies, General Electric, and Xerox want the best and the brightest people to work in an inclusive team environment--not having their employees hiding from each other who they really are. Companies such as BI Pharmaceuticals and Aetna haven't folded under the weight of having these State-based workplace protections. In fact, they are thriving in Connecticut, across the country, and all around the world.

So in speaking with companies from all over Connecticut, none, to me, has ever argued that equal protection in Connecticut is something that is holding their businesses back. They have been living under this law for decades now. And it is not just Connecticut's largest employers. Connecticut's law actually goes further than ENDA does in prohibiting discrimination even among businesses with fewer than 15 employees. Our small business community understands that, far from inhibiting commerce, nondiscrimination policies actually help make our companies--big and small--stronger.

So even though a majority of American businesses oppose employment discrimination, some argue this legislation is going to harm businesses whose leaders have very strong religious beliefs. However, I think it is important to note the religious exemption in this legislation is even broader--remarkably broader, I would argue--than the exemption that is in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and it represents a compromise that doesn't go as far as some Members of this body, including myself, would like.

In an op-ed that was published this summer, the former head of the NAACP, Julian Bond, equated these religious concerns with the arguments he heard from opponents of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Here is what Bond wrote.

In response to the historic gains of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, opponents argued that their religious beliefs prohibited integration. To be true to their religious beliefs, they argued they couldn't serve African-Americans in their restaurants or accept interracial marriages.

It would be shocking to hear somebody make a similar argument today about the treatment of African-Americans in our society. Frankly, I think it will be just as shocking 40 or 50 years from now for people to read that this argument is being made today about the treatment of LGBT Americans. There are, in fact--interesting to point out--numerous Christian and Jewish organizations and denominations that have taken a strong stand in favor of this legislation because they understand that unequal treatment under the law is at odds with their faith.

Others on this floor have made the argument that passage of ENDA will lead to frivolous lawsuits from fired workers. So let me give my State's perspective on this. Again, we have been living under this law since 1991. We have had protections that we are debating today for two decades and we simply haven't seen frivolous lawsuits. And again, we have big companies that employ thousands of people across the State and across the Nation. Let me cite the statistics from 2009 to 2010, which is the most recent year for which we have data available.

Out of a total of 1,740 employment-based discrimination complaints that were filed in the State that year, only 53 were based on sexual orientation discrimination. Just as a means of comparison, 464 complaints were filed based on age discrimination. We went back a number of years, and in not a single year over the last half decade that we looked at were there more than about 40 or 50 complaints.

My State has been a test case for these protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. The parade of horrible consequences opponents of this bill say will happen just have not happened in Connecticut.

What we are doing here is pretty simple. We are not trampling on the First Amendment. We are not dictating morality. We are not harming the economy. We are not undermining the religious community. We are just saying that you can't discriminate against people in the workplace because of whom they choose to love or who they are inside.

The simplicity of this bill is why two-thirds of the American public support it, and it is why I believe that 50 years from now history is going to judge no less harshly those who vote against this act as it now judges those who voted against some of the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. Whom you love, who you are inside, and what you feel should never, ever be a reason for discrimination.

I was on the House floor 6 years ago when the House passed ENDA, and I still remember listening to Congressman Barney Frank's closing argument. He welled up as he was giving it, and there were a lot of tears shed on the floor as well. I just want to close by quoting what he said, and I won't try to do his accent. Barney Frank said:

I used to be someone subject to this prejudice. And through luck and circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I am now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torment they endure, to people who fear they will lose their job at a gas station if somebody finds out whom they love. I feel an obligation to use the status that I have been lucky enough to get to help them. I make a personal appeal to my colleagues, please don't turn your back on them.

We are all big shots here. We have been lucky enough to get elected to the greatest deliberative body in the world, and there is an obligation and a responsibility that comes with the job we have to stick up for people who are being discriminated against because of who they are. The greatest moments of this body have been when we have joined together, Republican and Democrat, to stand against that kind of discrimination.

Our ability to rise to Congressman Frank's challenge--``please, don't turn your back on them''--can be this week, another great chapter in the history of this great body.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source